So the question is: did GOD condemn them for their cultural standpoints, or did HE move within and work HIS perfect will through it?
Keep in mind that MANY of the things that were done in the Bible were not from the Kingdom's origin, but from the current culture. Strongest case in point:
The very term and office of the Apostle was originally Greco-Roman, not Hebraic, and yet Jesus used it to define the 12 top leaders that HE sent out, as well as others HE sent out with similar authority.
Zipporah was not Israeli at all, but born from the priest of Midian. She shares Hebrew blood, but was not a natural born Israelite. Ethiopia was from a TOTALLY different bloodline. Thats the line of Ham, but Moses is from the line of Shem. This goes back to the sons of Noah, not the sons of Abraham. Far too often, people have tied to blur those lines, but they are definite and sure. No where in the verses that you mentioned did it even hint at Cush. Therefore, the Ethiopian woman wasn't even under the natural covenant of Abraham Iasaac or Jacob until marriage!!
Zipporah was not an Israelite. Israelites ARE Hebrews. Zipporah was a Midian, which many scholars agree that Midian lies in modern-day Jordan. Moses did marry a Cushite woman, which the Greeks called "Ethiopians." I have not seen a scripture stating that Moses divorced Zipporah, so the only option left to believe is that he additionally married a Cushite woman, while married to Zipporah.
They were not Hebrews. They may have been Shemites, but they were not Hebrews. The word "Hebrew" means "to cross over." They were always called Israelites because they were all the children of Jacob. Midianites were never called Israelites, or Hebrews.
Midianites were of Hebrew blood. The Midianites were from Midian, son of Abraham according to Genesis 25.Abraham is a Hebrew. The thing that those who are only focused on Israel miss is that Hebrew blood courses through more vines than many would admit to. All of the sons of Abraham had Hebrew blood simply because they were from a man who was pure-blooded Hebrew.
Yah does not forbid it (polygny). At the same time it isn't necessarily preferred either. It's just a choice and sometimes was a matter of circumstances. Not everything that is lawful is expedient. A plural marriage can work for many but it can also not work for many others. It's one of those things that wasn't bad for everyone who did it and was therefore regulated so that when it was done it wasn't done in a way that hurt or oppressed women further than the way he allowed them to be dominated. If it was bad for everyone it would have been outlawed. At the same time it was regulated because it wasn't good for everyone either.
Yah does not forbid it (polygny). At the same time it isn't necessarily preferred either. It's just a choice and sometimes was a matter of circumstances. Not everything that is lawful is expedient.
Not trying to be sarcastic, but this does not appear to be sound doctrine. It's anybody's guess if polygamy is good for them or not. And if that's the case, what does it matter if people enter into multiple relationships? This will at least give them an idea to put polygamy to the test to see if it is good for them or not - wouldn't you say, since it's not forbidden in the scriptures.